The Current Political Environment for Sport in the UK Essay

Sport and physical activity occupy a substantial place in the nation’s society and have various implications in numerous spheres of life. Besides, for a particular group of people, this area becomes a professional field that can impose multiple challenges and opportunities. Sport becomes an essential tool that can have an impact on social or political relations. More than fifty years ago, the president of the International Olympic Committee suggested that sport has “little to do with politics and the former has no place in the dealings of the latter” (Grix, 2015:1). However, the political environment is connected to sports development (SD) and its perception and management within a community. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how changing political, economic, and cultural shifts affect SD, what are the primary issues, and propose potential measures for its future sustainable development.

First, it is crucial to understand the concept of SD and the approaches to it. According to Sam (2016), SD applies to new athletes’ recruitment, the careful maintenance of the existing ones, and all the aspects that can be derived from those points. The field of sport development can have different orientations and focus on various branches of society. Hence, it promotes the objective of sport being available for everyone, the identification of talents, and relating sport to numerous policies, such as “health or community regeneration” (Sam, 2016:228). In such a way, SD has several allegations and can be influenced by the modifications in political directions and procedures, and strategies.

Still, another vital factor in sports development is the individuals’ attitude and perception of physical activity. One of the signalizing moments was the announcement before the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The Chair of the London Organising Committee for Olympic Games specified that it was time “to drive sports legacy” and boost participation in physical activities (Weed et al., 2015:196). Consequently, it was a call for action and the statement that the Games can positively impact sport development. It is possible to say that the authorities aimed to promote the sport with an example of participating athletes, which was considered to be an encouragement measure.

One of the interesting points is the difference between the previous view on sports during the influence of the Labour government in the UK and the current Conservative administration’s impact. The concept of social inclusion was in the core of management throughout Tony Blair’s supervision, where the sport was “the best health policy, education policy, anti-crime policy and anti-drugs policy” (Bailey, 2018:57). Hence, the power that sport possessed went beyond physical and health state improvement and claimed to touch the aspects of social life, positively affecting numerous issues for individuals and the country’s development. Moreover, under the Labour government, physical education was considered to be a measure of attracting people from different backgrounds, developing their social skills, uniting them, and preventing from potential illegal activities (Lindsey and Bacon, 2015). This period in the UK’s sport development represented the focus on sport as a social policy to enhance education and knowledge and boost social contribution.

Another event that occurred during the emphasis on social inclusion was the implementation of different initiatives directed towards sport power expansion. The PE, School Sport and Club Links (PESSCL) scheme involved eight different leads aiming to increase the participation level (Parnell et al., 2016). It is crucial to note here that this arrangement attracted substantial funding from the government, which advanced the influence of physical education throughout the nation. In such a way, the PESSCL received more than £1 billion for the improvement of sporting facilities around the country (Parnell et al., 2016). Hence, one can see that the country experienced a considerable investment in the sport sector, which had its effect on the rapid SD and the facilitation of access to physical activities among communities. It is also essential to mention modernisation that led sport agencies attempting to influence the operations of national governing bodies of sport (NGBs) (Tacon and Walters, 2016). Therefore, the Labour government significantly contributed to the sporting industry with its public policies and funding.

However, with a change in the political and financial situation, the sport industry also experienced modifications. When the Conservative government came into power, it announced the cuts to public fields, including sport activities, significantly lowering the funding for the PESSCL initiatives (Lindsey, 2018). Thus, the nation started to experience a decrease in the financial resources for sport development. The point is that the UK entered the period of challenging economic times, possessing a debt of more than £1.5 trillion and having a budget deficit (Girginov, 2017). The devastating situation emphasised the need for the changes in public expenditures and the transformation of the sport funding in the nation.

Consequently, the government had to cut spending, and sport system became one of the fields experiencing public cuts, which challenged the support for physical education. As a response to the alteration, a new youth sport policy ‘Creating a sporting habit for life,’ proposed by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS), was introduced (Keech and Buckley, 2016). The administration had to search for new ways to finance the public sector and to keep developing the sporting industry. Thus, a new strategy portrayed a new “more rigorous and targeted’ approach to practice that would link “schools and community sport clubs and introduce a new funding initiative” (Parnell et al., 2016:294). The management undertook an effort to find novel ways to invest in physical education and sport development to sustain its influence on society.

It is also critical to contemplate on the aspect of the connection between sport and health policies. The paragraphs above mention that one of SD orientations is related to community integration and health industry. The United Nations proposed that sport represents “a unique and universal power” to inspire, motivate, and engage people in attempts to improve their health (Weed, 2016:559). In light of this notion, sport development starts to represent an essential topic in the government’s directions and emphases. Thus, in 2015, the UK focused on the ‘Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation,’ which focuses on encouraging individuals to live healthier lives and be more active (Weed, 2016). One can say that the country is utilising different motivation factors to increase the interest in sports among communities.

At this point, it is curious to look at statistical numbers that represent the level of physical activity in the UK. The implementation of a new strategy brought favourable results to the level of undertakings. The higher percentage of individuals started to meet the guidelines for physical movements provided by the Chief Medical Officer, and the UK experienced a drop in the proportion of the inactive population (Weed, 2016). Therefore, the propaganda of sports as a means to improve health state started to work and attract more people. The Health Survey for England revealed that almost 40% of the country’s population is less active, with more than 20% within this group who spend less than thirty minutes weekly doing any sport (Weed, 2016). Despite the growth in active individuals, those figures portray the necessity of improving the situation and bringing new incentives to enhance sporting activities.

The next crucial area is the role of management and various sport organisations in the industry and their connection to sport policy development. Under tight conditions of public cuts after the crisis of 2008, many institutions were under pressure to provide high-quality services with limited financial and time resources (Parnell et al., 2016). Thus, rigid measures had an impact on the way the industry was managed. Sport management includes the integration of strategies “evident in the majority of modern business, government and non-profit organisations” (Hoye et al., 2015:4). One can claim that the investments in this public sector during the Labour government outlines a firm ground for the associations and collaborations to enhance physical education and development. Besides, it is essential not to forget the role of non-profit entities that can have different liabilities, legal structures, responsibilities and resources (King, 2017). Non-profit organisations occupy a substantial place in sport management.

It is possible to say that the modifications in the political environment and its implications affect sport management and the way the organisations build their operations. The culture of sporting behaviour and coaching became more pressing, which highlighted the need for managing change and culture change in the field (Booth, 2016). Hence, the significance of physical activities’ value is recognised, but the figures for the population’s activity do not grow so fast. Thus, the institutions need to focus on collaboration and new possibilities to promote sport engagement, which imposes the connotation to change management. Organisational performance plays one of the key roles here, which, under the conditions of austerity and, thus, “pressure for accountability and performance measurement,” became imperative for sport management (Nowy et al., 2015:157). Accordingly, with the switch to the Conservative government, a decline in funding, and new policies, both for-profit and non-profit associations started to implement new strategies in SD.

Sport management implicates a particular structure of governing among the entities and regulations. In the UK sport has a degree of independence from government, which was established by a Royal Charter, and it operates under the principles of active collaboration “between actors at all levels” (Girginov, 2017:290). One of the paragraphs above mentions that sport management underlines the connection between business, government, and non-profit companies, which means that although all of them stand distinctively in the industry, they are interrelated. Thus, multiple means of portraying sport and expanding it within the nation exist. For instance, different sport organisation can emphasise the commodification or practice, focus on various goals, such as profits or health, and utilise different measurement instruments (Anagnostopoulos et al., 2016). Thus, the structure of sport entities holding particular independence and operating in balance can focus on different objectives and tools, but all contribute to the overall value.

It is vital to understand under which principles both for-profit and non-profit organisations work in the sporting area. The primary policy instruments used in the UK is the Whole Sport Plan (WSP), which represents a set of NGBs’ activities, covering all possible implications, including talent identification, services, elite sport, and others (Nichols and Taylor, 2015). Hence, under this proposal, the institutions and clubs at different levels can ground their activities and find opportunities and alternatives. Moreover, it is critical to note that the local authorities do not possess “a statutory duty” to establish sport services, but they invest substantial funds in this area (Girginov, 2017:291). One can claim that due to the influence that SD has, local administration seeks positive impact on social inclusion, crime rates, and community health.

Numerous organisations influence sport development and bring value in the UK. Among them, there are NGBs, the Sport and Recreation Alliance (SPA) that contribute to the creation of numerous Councils of sport, and sport clubs (Girginov, 2017). In such a way, the sporting structure includes multiple bodies that need to adapt to the current situation. For instance, if a sport club becomes a member of the Community Amateur Sport Club (CASC), it receives softer taxation regulations but can be limited by amateur status (Porter, 2019). Thus, different associations and entities can have various policies and work under related but sometimes distinguished guidelines.

One more vital aspect of sport development and its relation to the political perspectives within the nation is the future. With the change from the Labour to Conservative Government and the devastating impact of the financial crisis, the sport field went through changes, and it is not excluded that there will be further transformation. The administration keeps promoting physical education with the focus on the significance of sport participation for health and social benefits. One can say that in the future, the nation will experience a decrease in the numbers for the inactive part of the population, and more individuals will view sport as an integral part of life. Another view on SD in the UK involves possible challenges that the industry might face due to the policy entrepreneurs’ engagement (Mwaanga and Adeosun, 2016). Therefore, in conclusion, different outcomes are possible for sport presence, and all the parties involved in the process should focus on establishing the right goals, visible objectives, and generating higher value to society.

Reference List

1. Anagnostopoulos, C., Winand, M. and Papadimitriou, D. (2016) ‘Passion in the workplace: empirical insights from team sport organisations.’ European Sport Management Quarterly, 16(4) pp.385-412.
2. Bailey, R. (2018) ‘Sport, physical education and educational worth.’ Educational Review, 70(1) pp.51-66.
3. Booth, J. (2016) ‘Sustainable sports development or effective change management?’ In Biscomb, K., Medcalf, R. and Griggs, G. (eds.) Current issues in contemporary sport development. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, pp.38-52.
4. Girginov, V. (2017) ‘UK: England—national governing bodies of sport and government agencies.’ In Scheerder, J., Willem, A. and Claes, E. (eds.) Sport policy systems and sport federations: a cross-national perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 283-302.
5. Grix, J. (2015) Sport politics: introduction. London: Palgrave.
6. Hoye, R., Smith, A.C., Nicholson, M. and Stewart, B. (2015) Sport management: principles and applications. 4^th ed., Abingdon: Routledge.
7. Keech, M. and Buckley, J. (2016) ‘Nobody knew what to do: local indifference and national neglect after the school sport partnership was dissolved.’ In Biscomb, K., Medcalf, R. and Griggs, G. (eds.) Current issues in contemporary sport development. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, pp.104-118.
8. King, N. (2016) Sport governance: an introduction. Abingdon: Routledge.
9. Lindsey, I. (2018) ‘Analysing policy change and continuity: physical education and school sport policy in England since 2010.’ Sport, Education and Society, 25(1) pp.27-42.
10. Lindsey, I. and Bacon, D. (2016) ‘In pursuit of evidence-based policy and practice: a realist synthesis-inspired examination of youth sport and physical activity initiatives in England (2002–2010).’ International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 8(1) pp.67-90.
11. Mwaanga, O. and Adeosun, K. (2016) ‘The critical participatory paradigm and its implications.’ In Auweele, Y. V., Cook, E. and Pary, J. (eds.) Ethics and governance in sport: the future of sport imagined. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.190-198.
12. Nichols, G. and Taylor, P. (2015) ‘Sport clubs in England.’ In Breuer, C., Hoekman, R., Nagel, S. and van der Werff, H. Sport clubs in Europe. Cham: Springer, pp.111-130.
13. Nowy, T., Wicker, P., Feiler, S. and Breuer, C. (2015) ‘Organisational performance of non-profit and for-profit sport organisations.’ European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(2) pp.155-175.
14. Parnell, D., Cope, E., Bailey, R. and Widdop, P. (2016) ‘Sport policy and English primary physical education: the role of professional football clubs in outsourcing.’ Sport in Society, 20(2) pp.292-302.
15. Parnell, D., Spracklen, K. and Millward, P. (2017) ‘Sport management issues in an era of austerity.’ European Sport Management Quarterly, 17(1) pp.67-74.
16. Porter, C. (2019) Supporter Ownership in English Football. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
17. Sam, M.P. (2016) ‘Sport development.’ In Hoye, R. and Parent, M. M. (eds.) Sage Handbook of sport management. London: SAGE pp.227-240.
18. Tacon, R. and Walters, G. (2016) ‘Modernisation and governance in UK national governing bodies of sport: how modernisation influences the way board members perceive and enact their roles.’ International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 8(3) pp.363-381.
19. Weed, M. (2016) ‘Should we privilege sport for health? The comparative effectiveness of UK government investment in sport as a public health intervention.’ International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 8(4) pp.559-576.
20. Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L. and Dowse, S. (2015) ‘The Olympic Games and raising sport participation: a systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect.’ European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(2) pp.195-226.